Posted on 12/09/2008 2:39:05 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.
"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."
"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
By admission that I can not comprehend all that God is, has been, will be, and the day to day details of His plan for my life, I do not feel I violating my own standards as you say.
I know what fossil records, astronomy, and science can show regarding the age of the universe and the age of the planet. I also know what it has yet to explain regarding the creation of man, the lack of fossil evidence of evolution, the lack of explanation of origin of the complex living machinery of DNA/RNA. So I have to reconcile that my own way.
If you choose to interpret Gods “day” as 24 hours, and confine God to live in that box, that's your choice. I think God tells us many truths about how we should live our lives, and also gives us many examples of how we can not comprehend Him completely while we are of this Earth. But He is pleased when we seek to find the answers for His glory, not our own.
No, that's your own injection. That choice wasn't given. The question was, is the Bible literally true? Nobody said if the answer is "no" then it is all fairy tales.
Oh...well, cite some inconsistencies for me.
Sure. The gospels are ripe for this because they are different versions of the same story. But the versions aren't the same. If one believes that every word in the Bible is true and divinely inspired, there can be no contradictions. But there are.
Take two simple examples. Check the gospels for the following facts. Check each gospel.
What was written on the sign above Jesus when he was crucified?
When Peter denied Jesus three times, to whom did he issue the denials?
No, this is an opinion. And not a very good one.
The facts are the complete opposite.
This is totally off-topic, but worth answering.
Yes we should have invaded Iraq! The "why" was explained at the time, and it wasn't that he had WMDs.
The reason people fail to understand the Iraq war is that they don't consider what would happen if we hadn't done it. But at the time it was decided that's exactly what the discussions were about. It's the basis for the decision.
It is not simply that Iraq supposedly had WMDs. Although everyone thought he did. It's that he had continually failed to abide by the sanctions and terms of the first Gulf War, that those sanctions were starting to break down because the rest of the world was losing their will to enforce them, and left in power he would certainly reconstruct his WMD programs, and support terrorists. That's the alternative that was prevented. People never think about what the alternative was.
I've presented reasons that I believe that the Genesis account cannot be describing evolution, and reasons I believe a fairy tale/allegory/poetry Genesis would not be consistent with the Gospel being true. I haven't said, "shut off your brain just ignore all questions." Tell me, what part of anything I've said indicates that thinking and reason are not welcome in the Christian religion in my opinion?
If you choose to interpret Gods “day” as 24 hours, and confine God to live in that box, that's your choice.
If someone tells me they did something in a day, and describes that period as having a morning and an evening, and I believe they meant they did it in a 24 hour period that has an evening and a morning, I'm putting that person in a box?
You really believe that? Really?
If Genesis describes the Big Bang and evolution scenario, why do plants come before the sun? Why do birds come before land animals? And if it's just allegory or poetry, where does the allegory or poetry stop? With the fall of man? Noah? Abraham? Moses?
I think God tells us many truths about how we should live our lives, and also gives us many examples of how we can not comprehend Him completely while we are of this Earth.
Can you cite for me anywhere else in the Bible where God says "Here's what I did, when I did it and how I did it," where we are expected to bunde incapable of understanding what happened, when it happened, how long it took or how He did it?
no it isn’t an opinion- check you facts- Macroevoltuion is biolgically impossible- Fact- NOT opinion- but thanks for playing- Next?
It's literature, it's poetry
It's similitude's, It's mystery.
The woman clothed with the sun is a celestial woman of a state of glory far beyond what the flesh can experience or appreciate.
The flood destroyed all the earth except those in the ark
Pharaoh drowned all the male children. . .
Except for Moshe who was placed in an ark. . .
And the dragon was wroth with the woman. . .
He cast out a flood . . .
All kinds of stuff there, just have to look.
[[Take two simple examples. Check the gospels for the following facts. Check each gospel.
What was written on the sign above Jesus when he was crucified?]]
Two points mlo- The bible was the INSPIRED word of God, which meant htta God inspired EACH writer to write HIS word- Second, there were a coupel of signs above Christ’s head- written by Pilot, in each language, which read differently
You no doubt are getting your ‘biblical errors’ fro mwebsites already set up that hope to tear down God’s word, but I assure you that each and every supposed ‘contraditcion’ mentioned on those sites has been refuted biblically- showing that you really shouldn’t be gettign your ‘amunition’ from such antiChristian sites because they can’t be relied upon to tel lyou the TRUTH in the first place.
Here’s a coupel of links for you
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
There are many great sites o nthe net that have refuted those supposed ‘contradictions’ and which more fulyl explain just what ‘inspired’ word of God means- Each writer had somethign akin to ‘artistic liscence’, yet were constrained by the actual inspiration of God’s own ‘breathed word’ that He commanded htem to write.
If you’re looking to refute the creation account by pointing to some supposed ‘contradictions’ about what the sign above Christ said, and the fact that each writer used a slightly different twist, then you’re not arming yourself with very solid ammunition I’m afraid-
Scripture is full of references which clearly state that God’s word is inspired, and God breathed, and that every word of it is- And quite frankly, there is simply no reason why God couldn’t have inspired different wording through different writers abotu hte same events
When Christ comes back, He will be seen by EVERYONE and EVERYONE will hear His word all at hte same time- Now, do you suppose He will pause after He says soemthign, then say it another language, and hten another and so on and so forth? Or do you imagine God is big enouigh that He speaks a universal language that we can all understand as He says it? Or do you think that Christ’s return is just another ‘story’ that can’t be beleived?
Examples of how God's message had been corrupted by man in the case of Christianity?
Popes who ordered beheadings. Evangelists who wear Rolex watches. The loosening of standards to attract more followers.
Need I give more examples?
I didn’t imply Bush was uncommitted to Christian doctrine. I said he was wishy washy. As for a Constitutional Amendment regarding homosexual marriage, that’s what he proposed when he first ran for president. He never pushed for it after being elected. I still believe an amendment is necessary as the homosexual militants and judges continue to gain ground against traditional marriage. States’ rights? LOL Look at abortion!
You know, from your responses to me and others, I honestly cant tell if your a Christian or an agnostic.
What I can tell is that your a prideful agitator who likes to needle at others with your own literal interpretation. You may be right but there is a lot of physical evidence in this world that says your interpretation is not complete.
As many have pointed out, we have been given many parables. You want to say God made the world in a human defined 24 hour day. Have your opinion. As to morning and evening, you have never heard of “dawn” of a new age? As to the order, I cant explain, any more than I can comprehend how God already knows the future even though I still have choices to make. Its beyond human capacity to do so.
I am not trying to criticize, but as I said, I cant tell if your a believing Christain or an agnostic trouble maker, because throughout discussion, you are more concerned about a historical interpretation of the old Testament than the examples of relationships we are supposed to follow from the new Testament. So if you are a Christain, I have to say you are not helping spread the faith by making the history in Genesis your rallying cry. Try the Gospels instead.
But that's the subject of this article, and you are making the same point I'm making, and that Bush made. Every word is not literal truth.
You no doubt are getting your ‘biblical errors’ fro mwebsites already set up that hope to tear down God’s word,...
In fact, no. I'm not.
but I assure you that each and every supposed ‘contraditcion’ mentioned on those sites has been refuted biblically...
It simply isn't possible to refute some things. If someone says 2 + 2 = 5, and someone else objects, it isn't possible to truthfully refute that objection. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, no matter how anyone tried to "interpret" it.
The same is true with the examples I gave. One gospel specifically cites three people to whom Peter denied Jesus. Another gospel does the same, but they are not the same three people. That can't be reconciled. At least one version is wrong.
If you’re looking to refute the creation account by pointing to some supposed ‘contradictions’ about what the sign above Christ said...
That's not what I'm doing. I'm addressing the point of this thread, which is, is the Bible literally true? Clearly, you agree with me that it is not.
Because you say so huh? You don't know what you are talking about.
None of your examples involve corruption of the Bible.
Got any evidence of that?
He doesn’t know what he believes or why. Wishy washy.
When I responded with "One flaw this guy doesn't have is being wishy-washy on faith," you began talking about his view of Islam.
What exactly were we supposed to conclude from that?
He doesn’t know what he believes or why. Wishy washy.
When I responded with "One flaw this guy doesn't have is being wishy-washy on faith," you began talking about his view of Islam.
What exactly were we supposed to conclude from that?
States’ rights? LOL Look at abortion!
I wasn't saying that an amendment would violate state's rights or that I was against it, I was saying that was a reasonable argument against it that did not reflect on a person's level of Christian faith.
[[Because you say so huh? You don’t know what you are talking about.]]
Obviously it’s you who doesn’t understand if you don’t grasp the fact that scientific fact means just that- scientific fact. But again- thanks for playing
[[But that’s the subject of this article, and you are making the same point I’m making, and that Bush made. Every word is not literal truth.]]
That is NOT the point Pres.Bush was making- and you know it- He was assertign that he wasn’t sure hte bible was literally true- speaking to key events- not every single word- this is proved out by the fact that he mentions creation and thinks that evoltuion might be true
[[In fact, no. I’m not.]]
Well good- because htose sites are full of ignorant false accusations that are easily refuted.
[[It simply isn’t possible to refute some things.]]
Your statemnt has nothign to do with what I said- it IS possible to easily refute the claims of innacuracies, and many peopel have doen just that
[[The same is true with the examples I gave. One gospel specifically cites three people to whom Peter denied Jesus. Another gospel does the same, but they are not the same three people. That can’t be reconciled. At least one version is wrong]]
They are all right- if you’d done your homework, instead of taking false claism at face value, you would have goen to the commentaries on those passages that were carried out by biblical scholars, and noted that one- You are alluding to the different accounts about Jesus’ predictions about Peter’s denial, and the fact that the cock crowed 3 times- this is an old false accusation that the bible is contradictory here
Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34).
Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me” (Luke 22:34).
Jesus answered him...“Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times” (John 13:38).
and
And immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:74b-75).
Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Luke 22:60-61).
Peter then denied again [for the third time—EL]; and immediately a rooster crowed (John 18:27).
“In a similar way, no one should assume that because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing, while Mark mentioned two crowings, that a contradiction exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the “main” crowing (like the fourth buzzer was the “main” buzzer at the football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned—14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one o’clock. Relatively few individuals ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (see “cock,” Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, 1998). It is likely that Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened. “
When Jesus said, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34), it is obvious that He was using the phrase “the rooster crows” in the more conventional way. Mark, on the other hand, specified that there were two crowings. In the same way that the husband gives his wife more detailed instructions concerning a football game, Mark used greater precision in recording this event. It may be that Mark quoted the exact words of Jesus, while the other writers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw fit to employ the less definite style to indicate the same time of night (McGarvey, 1875, p. 355). Or, perhaps Jesus made both statements. After Peter declared that he never would deny the Lord, Jesus could have repeated His first comment and added another detail, saying: “[E]ven this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added). We cannot be certain why Mark’s account is worded differently than the other writers, but by understanding that “the rooster crowing” commonly was used to indicate a time just before daybreak, we can be assured that absolutely no contradiction exists among the gospel writers.”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/20
If you believe the Bible to THE WORD, then each one of those violates the Bible.
I’m asking you if you have evidence that the Bible itself is corrupted. The Bible, not what some self-aggrandizing bozo does after reading the Bible.
How was that not clear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.